StackExchange.Redis - LockTake / LockRelease Usage - redis

I am using Redis with StackExchange.Redis. I have multiple threads that will at some point access and edit the value of the same key, so I need to synchronize the manipulation of the data.
Looking at the available functions, I see that there are two functions, TakeLock and ReleaseLock. However, these functions take both a key and a value parameter rather than the expected single key to be locked. The intellisene documentation and source on GitHub don't explain how to use the LockTake and LockRelease functions or what to pass in for the key and value parameters.
Q: What is the correct usage of LockTake and LockRelease in StackExchange.Redis?
Pseudocode example of what I'm aiming to do:
//Add Items Before Parallel Execution
redis.StringSet("myJSONKey", myJSON);
//Parallel Execution
Parallel.For(0, 100, i =>
{
//Some work here
//....
//Lock
redis.LockTake("myJSONKey");
//Manipulate
var myJSONObject = redis.StringGet("myJSONKey");
myJSONObject.Total++;
Console.WriteLine(myJSONObject.Total);
redis.StringSet("myJSONKey", myNewJSON);
//Unlock
redis.LockRelease("myJSONKey");
//More work here
//...
});

There are 3 parts to a lock:
the key (the unique name of the lock in the database)
the value (a caller-defined token which can be used both to indicate who "owns" the lock, and to check that releasing and extending the lock is being done correctly)
the duration (a lock intentionally is a finite duration thing)
If no other value comes to mind, a guid might make a suitable "value". We tend to use the machine-name (or a munged version of the machine name if multiple processes could be competing on the same machine).
Also, note that taking a lock is speculative, not blocking. It is entirely possible that you fail to obtain the lock, and hence you may need to test for this and perhaps add some retry logic.
A typical example might be:
RedisValue token = Environment.MachineName;
if(db.LockTake(key, token, duration)) {
try {
// you have the lock do work
} finally {
db.LockRelease(key, token);
}
}
Note that if the work is lengthy (a loop, in particular), you may want to add some occasional LockExtend calls in the middle - again remembering to check for success (in case it timed out).
Note also that all individual redis commands are atomic, so you don't need to worry about two discreet operations competing. For more complexing multi-operation units, transactions and scripting are options.

There is my part of code for lock->get->modify(if required)->unlock actions with comments.
public static T GetCachedAndModifyWithLock<T>(string key, Func<T> retrieveDataFunc, TimeSpan timeExpiration, Func<T, bool> modifyEntityFunc,
TimeSpan? lockTimeout = null, bool isSlidingExpiration=false) where T : class
{
int lockCounter = 0;//for logging in case when too many locks per key
Exception logException = null;
var cache = Connection.GetDatabase();
var lockToken = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(); //unique token for current part of code
var lockName = key + "_lock"; //unique lock name. key-relative.
T tResult = null;
while ( lockCounter < 20)
{
//check for access to cache object, trying to lock it
if (!cache.LockTake(lockName, lockToken, lockTimeout ?? TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10)))
{
lockCounter++;
Thread.Sleep(100); //sleep for 100 milliseconds for next lock try. you can play with that
continue;
}
try
{
RedisValue result = RedisValue.Null;
if (isSlidingExpiration)
{
//in case of sliding expiration - get object with expiry time
var exp = cache.StringGetWithExpiry(key);
//check ttl.
if (exp.Expiry.HasValue && exp.Expiry.Value.TotalSeconds >= 0)
{
//get only if not expired
result = exp.Value;
}
}
else //in absolute expiration case simply get
{
result = cache.StringGet(key);
}
//"REDIS_NULL" is for cases when our retrieveDataFunc function returning null (we cannot store null in redis, but can store pre-defined string :) )
if (result.HasValue && result == "REDIS_NULL") return null;
//in case when cache is epmty
if (!result.HasValue)
{
//retrieving data from caller function (from db from example)
tResult = retrieveDataFunc();
if (tResult != null)
{
//trying to modify that entity. if caller modifyEntityFunc returns true, it means that caller wants to resave modified entity.
if (modifyEntityFunc(tResult))
{
//json serialization
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(tResult);
cache.StringSet(key, json, timeExpiration);
}
}
else
{
//save pre-defined string in case if source-value is null.
cache.StringSet(key, "REDIS_NULL", timeExpiration);
}
}
else
{
//retrieve from cache and serialize to required object
tResult = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(result);
//trying to modify
if (modifyEntityFunc(tResult))
{
//and save if required
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(tResult);
cache.StringSet(key, json, timeExpiration);
}
}
//refresh exiration in case of sliding expiration flag
if(isSlidingExpiration)
cache.KeyExpire(key, timeExpiration);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
logException = ex;
}
finally
{
cache.LockRelease(lockName, lockToken);
}
break;
}
if (lockCounter >= 20 || logException!=null)
{
//log it
}
return tResult;
}
and usage :
public class User
{
public int ViewCount { get; set; }
}
var cachedAndModifiedItem = GetCachedAndModifyWithLock<User>(
"MyAwesomeKey", //your redis key
() => // callback to get data from source in case if redis's store is empty
{
//return from db or kind of that
return new User() { ViewCount = 0 };
},
TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10), //object expiration time to pass in Redis
user=> //modify object callback. return true if you need to save it back to redis
{
if (user.ViewCount< 3)
{
user.ViewCount++;
return true; //save it to cache
}
return false; //do not update it in cache
},
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), //lock redis timeout. if you will have race condition situation - it will be locked for 10 seconds and wait "get_from_db"/redis read/modify operations done.
true //is expiration should be sliding.
);
That code can be improved (for example, you can add transactions for less count call to cache and etc), but i glad it will be helpfull for you.

Related

ASP.NET Core + Entity Framework changed data

I'm trying to save only changed entities.
If I remove this if:
if (!period.IsSame(_context.Periods.First(p => p.ID == period.ID)))
everything is fine.
But if I keep it, on the statement _context.Attach(period); or same if I use Update, I get an error:
InvalidOperationException: The instance of entity type 'Period' cannot be tracked because another instance with the same key value for {'ID'} is already being tracked.
I don't know how test that it's really modified.
public async Task<IActionResult> OnPostAsync(List<Period> periods)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return Page();
}
// _context.Periods.Add(Period);
int i = 0;
foreach (var period in periods)
{
TimeOnly startTime = TimeOnly.Parse(Request.Form["StartTime" + i].ToString());
TimeOnly endTime = TimeOnly.Parse(Request.Form["EndTime" + i].ToString());
period.StartHour = startTime.Hour;
period.StartMinute = startTime.Minute;
period.EndHour = endTime.Hour;
period.EndMinute = endTime.Minute;
period.StatusDate = DateTime.Now;
// if it already exists
if (period.ID > 0)
{
// if modified
if (!period.IsSame(_context.Periods.First(p => p.ID == period.ID)))
{
_context.Attach(period);
if (period.Delete)
{
period.Status = (int)Status.deleted;
}
else
{
period.Status = (int)Status.modified;
}
}
}
// if new
else
{
period.Status = (int)Status.created;
_context.Attach(period);
}
i++;
}
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
return RedirectToPage("./Periods");
}
I have tried both update and attach. I have search for entity tracking but it seems to be detached as soon as it's on a webpage
EF uses concept of change tracking to determine what should be done with entities. By default querying data will lead to context starting to track it hence the exception. You can mitigate it by disabling tracking by default, for example using .AsNoTracking():
if (!period.IsSame(_context.Periods.AsNoTracking().First(p => p.ID == period.ID)))
{
// ...
}
But this is not very advisable approach, due to multiple reasons - possibly change tracker will not detect any changes and you will need to handle that manually, and bigger reason - you will be querying database in a loop which is bad for application performance. Just fetch everything from the database and update it accordingly:
var existingPeriods = await _context.Periods
.Where(p => periods.Select(p => p.ID).Contains(p.ID))
.ToListAsync(); // or ToDictionaryAsync if there a lot of the periods
foreach (var period in periods)
{
var existing = existingPeriods.FirstOrDefault(p => p.ID == period.ID);
if (existing != null)
{
// maybe throw if period.ID != 0
// update data in existing
existing. ... = ...;
}
else
{
// if new ...
_context.Periods.Add(period);
}
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}

Force refresh IMemoryCache

I am trying to refresh IMemoryCache programmatically. After researching a few links
about Eviction Calback and Clearing cache, I thought I could combine the strategies i.e. clear the cache which would cause the eviction callback to fire. However apparently the post eviction callback won't trigger when the cache is cleared using reflection because it seems the whole cache item with its options (that includes the callback ) is gone. (cache item count goes to 0)
So my question is about refreshing a cache item before expiration, as this issue is still open
private static Dictionary<string, CancellationTokenSource> tokenDict = new Dictionary<string, CancellationTokenSource>();
private MemoryCacheEntryOptions CacheOptions
{
get
{
var expirationToken = new CancellationChangeToken( new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(ExpirationMinutes + .01)).Token);
var options = new MemoryCacheEntryOptions()
// Do not remove due to memory pressure
.SetPriority(Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory.CacheItemPriority.NeverRemove)
.SetSlidingExpiration(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(ExpirationMinutes))
// Force eviction to run AT expriry, default eviction happens when item is requested after expiry
.AddExpirationToken(expirationToken)
.RegisterPostEvictionCallback(callback: CacheItemRemoved, state: this);
tokenDict[cacheKey] = cancellationTokenSource;
return options;
}
}
private void CacheItemRemoved(object key, object value, EvictionReason reason, object state)
{
_logger.LogInformation($"Reloading {key} cache upon eviction");
switch (key)
{
case AccountCacheKey:
GetAccountCacheAsync();
break;
case FundCacheKey:
GetFundCacheAsync();
break;
default:
break;
}
}
private async Task<List<Account>> GetAccountCacheAsync()
{
return await _cache.GetOrCreateAsync(AccountCacheKey, async entry =>
{
entry.SetOptions(CacheOptions);
var accounts = await LoadAccountsAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
return accounts;
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
private async Task<List<Fund>> GetFundCacheAsync()
{
return await _cache.GetOrCreateAsync(FundCacheKey, async entry =>
{
entry.SetOptions(CacheOptions);
var funds = await LoadFundsAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
return funds;
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public async Task RefreshCacheAsync()
{
var cacheKeys = new List<string> { AccountCacheKey, FundCacheKey };
foreach (var key in cacheKeys)
{
if (tokenDict.TryGetValue(key, out var token))
{
if (token != null && !token.IsCancellationRequested && token.Token.CanBeCanceled)
{
token.Cancel();
token.Dispose();
}
}
}
}
You already posted a link with the best approach, but you seem to have chosen to go with one of the lower rated answers, which actually doesn't work for your purposes. Instead, you should follow this answer. It creates a cache "manager" class that among other things employs CancellationTokenSource to handle the eviction. That's actually the same method that was recommended in the Github issue you linked, as well.

NHibernate: Evicting but still having non unique object exception

This method is not my best, but had a circular reference issue going on so slapped it together last minute. For some reason, even though I'm evicting the original referenced order on the detail object, I've still got another association with the session. Should I use a get instead? Or even better is there a way to say evict ALL orders with ID = x ?
public DetailDTO SaveNewDetailToOrder(DetailDTO detailDTO)
{
var detailReturn = new DetailDTO();
try
{
var order = LoadOrderById(detailDTO.OrderId);
var previousStatus = issue.CurrentDetailStatus;
if (previousStatus != null && detailDTO.Status.Id != previousStatus.Id)
{
var detail = Mapper.Map<DetailDTO, Detail>(detailDTO);
_orderRepository.EvictOrder(detail.DetailOrder);
order.Details.Add(detailDTO);
order.IsEscalated = false;
order.DormantDate = detailDTO.CreatedTime;
var orderReturn = SaveOrder(order); ///Error Here
if (orderReturn.IsActionSuccessful)
{
detailReturn =
orderReturn.Details.DTOObjects.OrderByDescending(x => x.CreatedTime).First();
SendStatusChangeEmail(orderReturn);
}
}
else
{
detailReturn = _detailService.SaveDetail(detailDTO);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ServiceErrorMessage(ex, detailReturn);
}
return detailReturn ;
}
You can access session objects and use then whatever you like
session.GetSessionImplementation().PersistenceContext.EntityEntries
but if I were you i would make sure that i'm evicting the right object and spend some time on debuging. Knowing what is going on is better than searching for workarounds
foreach (var e in session.GetSessionImplementation().PersistenceContext.EntityEntries.Values.OfType<EntityType>().Where(<condition>))
{
session.Evict(e);
}

Generate test data in Raven DB

I am looking for a preferred and maintainable way of test data generation in Raven DB. Currently, our team does have a way to do it through .NET code. Example is provided.
However, i am looking for different options. Please share.
public void Execute()
{
using (var documentStore = new DocumentStore { ConnectionStringName = "RavenDb" })
{
documentStore.Conventions.DefaultQueryingConsistency = ConsistencyOptions.QueryYourWrites;
// Override the default key prefix generation strategy of Pascal case to lower case.
documentStore.Conventions.FindTypeTagName = type => DocumentConvention.DefaultTypeTagName(type).ToLower();
documentStore.Initialize();
InitializeData(documentStore);
}
}
Edit: Raven-overflow is really helpful. Thanks for pointing out to the right place.
Try checking out RavenOverflow. In there, I've got a FakeData project that has fake data (both hardcoded AND randomly generated). This can then be used in either my Tests project or the Main Website :)
Here's some sample code...
if (isDataToBeSeeded)
{
HelperUtilities.CreateSeedData(documentStore);
}
....
public static void CreateSeedData(IDocumentStore documentStore)
{
Condition.Requires(documentStore).IsNotNull();
using (IDocumentSession documentSession = documentStore.OpenSession())
{
// First, check to make sure we don't have any data.
var user = documentSession.Load<User>(1);
if (user != null)
{
// ooOooo! we have a user, so it's assumed we actually have some seeded data.
return;
}
// We have no users, so it's assumed we therefore have no data at all.
// So let's fake some up :)
// Users.
ICollection<User> users = FakeUsers.CreateFakeUsers(50);
StoreFakeEntities(users, documentSession);
// Questions.
ICollection<Question> questions = FakeQuestions.CreateFakeQuestions(users.Select(x => x.Id).ToList());
StoreFakeEntities(questions, documentSession);
documentSession.SaveChanges();
// Make sure all our indexes are not stale.
documentStore.WaitForStaleIndexesToComplete();
}
}
....
public static ICollection<Question> CreateFakeQuestions(IList<string> userIds, int numberOfFakeQuestions)
{
.... you get the idea .....
}

Pattern for limiting number of simultaneous asynchronous calls

I need to retrieve multiple objects from an external system. The external system supports multiple simultaneous requests (i.e. threads), but it is possible to flood the external system - therefore I want to be able to retrieve multiple objects asynchronously, but I want to be able to throttle the number of simultaneous async requests. i.e. I need to retrieve 100 items, but don't want to be retrieving more than 25 of them at once. When each request of the 25 completes, I want to trigger another retrieval, and once they are all complete I want to return all of the results in the order they were requested (i.e. there is no point returning the results until the entire call is returned). Are there any recommended patterns for this sort of thing?
Would something like this be appropriate (pseudocode, obviously)?
private List<externalSystemObjects> returnedObjects = new List<externalSystemObjects>;
public List<externalSystemObjects> GetObjects(List<string> ids)
{
int callCount = 0;
int maxCallCount = 25;
WaitHandle[] handles;
foreach(id in itemIds to get)
{
if(callCount < maxCallCount)
{
WaitHandle handle = executeCall(id, callback);
addWaitHandleToWaitArray(handle)
}
else
{
int returnedCallId = WaitHandle.WaitAny(handles);
removeReturnedCallFromWaitHandles(handles);
}
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(handles);
return returnedObjects;
}
public void callback(object result)
{
returnedObjects.Add(result);
}
Consider the list of items to process as a queue from which 25 processing threads dequeue tasks, process a task, add the result then repeat until the queue is empty:
class Program
{
class State
{
public EventWaitHandle Done;
public int runningThreads;
public List<string> itemsToProcess;
public List<string> itemsResponses;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
State state = new State();
state.itemsResponses = new List<string>(1000);
state.itemsToProcess = new List<string>(1000);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
{
state.itemsToProcess.Add(String.Format("Request {0}", i));
}
state.runningThreads = 25;
state.Done = new AutoResetEvent(false);
for (int i = 0; i < 25; ++i)
{
Thread t =new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Processing));
t.Start(state);
}
state.Done.WaitOne();
foreach (string s in state.itemsResponses)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}", s);
}
}
private static void Processing(object param)
{
Debug.Assert(param is State);
State state = param as State;
try
{
do
{
string item = null;
lock (state.itemsToProcess)
{
if (state.itemsToProcess.Count > 0)
{
item = state.itemsToProcess[0];
state.itemsToProcess.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
if (null == item)
{
break;
}
// Simulate some processing
Thread.Sleep(10);
string response = String.Format("Response for {0} on thread: {1}", item, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
lock (state.itemsResponses)
{
state.itemsResponses.Add(response);
}
} while (true);
}
catch (Exception)
{
// ...
}
finally
{
int threadsLeft = Interlocked.Decrement(ref state.runningThreads);
if (0 == threadsLeft)
{
state.Done.Set();
}
}
}
}
You can do the same using asynchronous callbacks, there is no need to use threads.
Having some queue-like structure to hold the pending requests is a pretty common pattern. In Web apps where there may be several layers of processing you see a "funnel" style approach with the early parts of the processing change having larger queues. There may also be some kind of prioritisation applied to queues, higher priority requests being shuffled to the top of the queue.
One important thing to consider in your solution is that if request arrival rate is higher than your processing rate (this might be due to a Denial of Service attack, or just that some part of the processing is unusually slow today) then your queues will increase without bound. You need to have some policy such as to refuse new requests immediately when the queue depth exceeds some value.